starwars_exodusfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Wraith-class Star Destroyer
200 heavy turbolaser cannons... is that a typo? Is it supposed to be 20? Right now, it doesn't look like it has less weapons than the ''Defensor''-class. --Halomek 00:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) *Well, aren't turbolaser batteries supposed to be... five, I think? So, I guess it would by a slim margin. --Cadden Blackthorne 00:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) **It's not a typo (40 batteries are 200 cannons, as Cadden said) but considering the extra weapons its got, it should probably be decreased slightly. And when I saw you had posted in the talk page, I was SURE you were complaining about the cloaking device :D --Jagtai 05:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC) ***The cloaking device doesn't really bother me, but it does seem a little overpowered for a 1,000 meter ship with a cloaking device. --Halomek 15:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) ****If it makes you happy, it can only fire about 25% of its weaponry when cloaked, AND the shields go down to half strength. It is meant to sneak in, de-cloak, and assault a target, before disappearing again. --Jagtai 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) *****I'd ask to have you add just how expensive this ship is. Cloaking devices alone run into the millions, one that isn't double blind like what I assume is the case for the Aquila Stealth Generator for the Wraith, would probably be double that amount. It seems like a good guess to me that a Wraith would be more expensive than any of the Imperial-classes. Additionally, a starfighter-scale cloak, like those on your Spectre-II’s, would likely be even more costly to create (the cloak, not the fighter). My understanding of Star Wars cloak-tech is that the smaller it gets, the more difficult it is to make it work. Apparently standard sized cloaks are a great deal larger than the average person, so trying to get one small enough to fit in a starfighter is quite a task. The entire package should easily be more expensive than the TIE Defender. --Halomek 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC) ******Ah yes, the old cannons vs. batteries debate. Now admittedly, I've been out of the loop for a while, but here's how I've always looked at the issue. It seems clear that from observed firepower discrepancies, such as the one between the Carrack cruiser and the Strike Cruiser, and between the ImpStar mk I and mk II, that mounting weapons in groups or batteries must allow for greater energy efficiency. From the fact that large ships typically mount both batteries and cannons, there must be some advantage to having individual cannons; since that advantage is not firepower, and SW weapons typically follow the rule of "smaller gun to smaller target", the most plausible possibility here is that individual guns allow superior targeting. But in mass numbers, any advantage there is bound to run afoul of the fact that the SW universe only has very crude targeting computers; organic gunners are still prevalent, droids are not especially accurate, and we even have cases, such as the Hapan Battle Dragon, of a ship's ability to target multiple hostiles being severely limited by its targeting computers. With a large number of independent guns, it is questionable whether SW tech would allow sufficient coordination for there to be any advantage over batteries beyond a certain point. Finally, battery-mounting seems to require a particular technological development. This would explain a number of observed cases, including the ImpStar II vs I, the use of batteries and individual guns versus quads and doubles on the VicStar II vs I, the absence of battery-mounted weapons on Venator Is and their presence on Venator IIs, and the Acclaimator's use of quad guns (like the VicStar I) rather than batteries. Interestingly, it seems that the main use of battery-mounted Ion Cannons is on Mon Cal ships, while the Star Destroyer line lacks that technology; when the number of actual ion cannons is calculated, Mon Cal ships are found to possess vast ion power, further supporting the hypothesis that battery mounting increases power efficiency. Incidentally, all of this means that mounting a mass of individual turbolasers, like this ship does, is not justified by the examples of ships with battery-mounted weapons.--Aetherwolf 2 May 2008 *******Well, the Wraith-class ships are VERY expensive, so there won't be many. As for the Spectre-II's, they are not able to fire at all when cloaked, so they are less useful that the Wraiths - but still very expensive. Spectre-II's will not be numerous either. Aether, I know that there is little to no advantage in using single cannons rather than batteries, but I just thought it more appropriate (don't ask me why). And I agree with you on the whole debate, and I usually do use batteries rather than single cannons. :) --Jagtai 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)